|Re: divvy up commons cost||<– Date –> <– Thread –>|
|From: BARANSKI (BARANSKIVEAMF1.NL.NUWC.NAVY.MIL)|
|Date: Fri, 12 Nov 93 11:50 CST|
From: Nancy Wight <wight [at] hpwarr.wal.hp.com> "On the one hand, we found that it puts an unfair burden on the people who need larger houses but won't necessarily contribute to more "use" of the common land/house/gardens/etc. For example, a three-person household w/ a 2000 sf house using a BR as an office should not necessarily have to pay twice the common development costs as a three-person household w/ a 1000 house." I don't see anything wrong with basing contribution for common expenses on sf of private dwellings. I see lots wrong with other approaches. This method encourages small homes. I think there is nothing wrong with 3 people in a 2000 sf home paying more then 3 people in a 1000 sf home. Either that's a hell of a big bedroom/office, or they've got some other rooms/bigger rooms. The operating costs should be divided somehow on the # of people in the family, but the actual "soft costs" - all of that money put at risk for 2-3 years - should be divided more equally. On the other end of the spectrum, some people feel that the soft costs should be divided evenly or based on the # of adults in the household. This would mean that all of the legal, architectural, engineering, administrative, etc. costs would be more equally distributed, because everyone gets the same benefit from these services. The Larger homes will have a bigger develpment cost as well. Also, the larger houses will cost more anyway because the "hard costs" (land and construction costs only) will be divided up on a square footage basis. Anyway, we are currently leaning toward a formula that is based more or less on the appraised value. The difference between the total appraised value and the total development costs would be split in half: half of it would be divided by the square footage formula you mentioned above, and the other half would be divided more or less evenly. We haven't decided on this yet, but it is currently on the table, and we are having a hard time figuring out the fairest thing to do. I'm glad to see that the simple square footage formula worked for you. Could work out in the long run, but it's a lot more work... Jim.
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.